From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:58:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] gpiolib: iron out include ladder mistakes In-Reply-To: <509983D0.1060107@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1352218863-2037-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <509983D0.1060107@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 11/06/2012 09:21 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> And we need to keep the static inlines in >> but here for the !CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO case, and then we >> may as well throw in a few warnings like the other >> prototypes there, if someone would have the bad taste >> of compiling without GENERIC_GPIO even. > > Hmm. Is there way to avoid the duplication of the dummy implementations? > Having a prototype and a truly dummy implementation in one place, but a > WARNing/failing dummy implementation elsewhere, seems like it'll cause > issues. Yeah :-/ This is not exactly elegant and is some side effect of the split between CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO and CONFIG_GPIOLIB, the real fix is to get rid of all GENERIC_GPIO implementations in the kernel and switch everyone over to GPIOLIB. Not that easy though :-( can't think of any nice fix. > Does this patch mean the previous series causes "git bisect" failures? Yeah once I have something that doesn't break x86 I might just squash collapse all of this into the gpioranges patch. Yours, Linus Walleij